We really. . REALLY, need a multiquote button here
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by analog
shakran is absolutely correct: if there's one thing, just one thing, that the news is NOT all about, and never has been, it's healing.
|
And to clarify, nor should it be. If something we show helps you heal, that's great, and trust me, not one of us in the media will begrudge that. However, our objective is not to heal, or to hurt you. It is to inform you. Sometimes information hurts, but the blame for that should be on the news maker, not the news reporter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hiredgun
I wish those journalists could show a little more restraint, though having never worked in media I can't particularly comment on what it takes to produce information and how that is reconciled with respecting people's right to a bit of distance and privacy.
|
I'm not there, so I can't really comment too much, but I do know some media types who are there. From what I'm hearing, the media IS being respectful. No one's chasing grieving students down the street. They give them the chance to talk - if they say no, then they say no. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking if a victim wants to talk. It would be crossing the line to keep harassing them after they say no, but to ask in the first place is fine. Believe it or not I've actually had people who found that talking to my camera, getting their story out, was cathartic. Shocked the crap out of me the first few times it happened, but it's actually not uncommon for that to occur.
As for what it takes to produce a story (remember we can't just spew information - we have to tell you the story in a way that you will remember it later), it takes getting in close. Here, if you're interested, check out this video. It's the 2007 National Press Photographers Association's large market station of the year.
http://www.nasites.net/projects/1296/largestation.asp
As you watch the stories, think about how much less of an impact there would be if the camera were kept at a "respectful distance." You just can't tell a good story with the camera always far away. But you can get in close without causing undue upset - it just takes thinking with your heart instead of your reporter's notebook. I've talked to people who's beloved pets have just (15 minutes ago) been killed by a tornado, I've talked to people who just found out their kid died in Iraq, I've talked to all sorts of people experiencing immediate personal tragedy, and I always make sure I don't do any more damage than has already been done.
Granted, not all journalists have the desire or the experience to pull this off, but there are crappy workers in every profession. You don't judge the entire banking industry because one teller can't add - nor should you judge the entire news industry based on the crappy actions of a few.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ARTelevision
As for attempts to discuss contemporary media outlets as ever being motivated by a sense of personal, social, or cultural responsibility, they do appear as quite naive or simply motivated by urges of denial.
|
It is equally naive to assume that all of us are just out to produce entertaining tripe.
Quote:
|
it would be helpful if terms such as “rights, freedoms, free expression, and freedom of the press” were more generally regarded as operative only in contexts of personal, social, and cultural responsibility.
|
OK. And what organization gets to decide when those freedoms can be applied then? Another way to ask that would be, how many government officials do you want on your Censorship Ministry?